IRC log of webfonts on 2011-06-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:00:13 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #webfonts
20:00:13 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/06/22-webfonts-irc
20:00:15 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
20:00:15 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #webfonts
20:00:17 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 3668
20:00:17 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see IA_Fonts()4:00PM scheduled to start now
20:00:18 [trackbot]
Meeting: WebFonts Working Group Teleconference
20:00:18 [trackbot]
Date: 22 June 2011
20:00:44 [Vlad]
zakim, this is 3668
20:00:44 [Zakim]
ok, Vlad; that matches IA_Fonts()4:00PM
20:00:46 [ChrisL]
ChrisL has joined #webfonts
20:01:15 [Zakim]
+ +44.845.397.aacc
20:01:45 [jfkthame]
jfkthame has joined #webfonts
20:01:58 [Zakim]
+ChrisL
20:02:12 [ChrisL]
zakim, who is here?
20:02:12 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +1.781.970.aaaa, +1.417.671.aabb, +44.845.397.aacc, ChrisL
20:02:14 [Zakim]
On IRC I see jfkthame, ChrisL, Zakim, RRSAgent, Vlad, jdaggett, trackbot
20:02:19 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.536.aadd
20:02:36 [jfkthame]
zakim, aacc is jfkthame
20:02:36 [Zakim]
+jfkthame; got it
20:02:39 [Zakim]
+??P6
20:02:41 [ChrisL]
scribe: ChrisL
20:02:49 [cslye]
cslye has joined #webfonts
20:02:55 [jdaggett]
zakim, ??p6 is me
20:02:55 [Zakim]
+jdaggett; got it
20:03:32 [Vlad]
zakim, aaaa is Vlad
20:03:32 [Zakim]
+Vlad; got it
20:03:46 [ChrisL]
zakim, aabb is Glen
20:03:46 [Zakim]
+Glen; got it
20:04:51 [ChrisL]
zakim, Glen is Glenn
20:04:51 [Zakim]
+Glenn; got it
20:06:07 [glenn]
glenn has joined #webfonts
20:06:14 [ChrisL]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2011Jun/0086.html
20:06:19 [ChrisL]
Chair: Vlad
20:07:10 [ChrisL]
Regrets: Tal
20:07:31 [erik]
erik has joined #webfonts
20:07:50 [erik]
can't call in, sorry
20:08:00 [ChrisL]
Topic: Formal objection from Samsung
20:08:14 [ChrisL]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2011AprJun/0069.html
20:08:57 [ChrisL]
Vlad: Glenn has joined the call.Please give the background for your objection. There has been much mailing list discussion
20:09:13 [ChrisL]
glenn: represent Samsung.Padt member of CSS WG.
20:09:40 [ChrisL]
... in section 1 intro it has three requirements on user agents
20:09:59 [ChrisL]
... unusual to have normative requirements in introduction
20:10:08 [Vlad]
Vlad has joined #webfonts
20:10:14 [ChrisL]
... the note seems to contain a normative must, unusual in a note
20:10:32 [ChrisL]
... these should not be in an introduction
20:11:06 [ChrisL]
glenn: core issue is that these three paragraphs and note make reference to css3 rules and ua behaviour,this constrains implementations of woff
20:11:24 [ChrisL]
... other implementations might use other ferencencing mechanisms or other access policy
20:12:04 [ChrisL]
... majorr objection is use of referencing mechanisms and ua resource fetching in this file format specification rather than some other document
20:12:28 [ChrisL]
... if these are all removed and subtiture text offered this would solve the objection
20:13:00 [ChrisL]
jdaggett: which version are you looking at
20:13:12 [Vlad]
http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/spec/
20:13:13 [cslye]
http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/spec/
20:13:23 [ChrisL]
ChrisL: the /TR version. Glenn, the editors draft has moved this normative text from the introduction
20:13:50 [ChrisL]
jdaggett: which version of the css3 fonts spec did you look at?
20:13:58 [ChrisL]
glenn: just the woff part
20:14:06 [ChrisL]
... ok so my first issue is solved
20:14:14 [ChrisL]
... in the editors draft
20:14:29 [ChrisL]
glenn: want to see the general requirements removed
20:14:43 [ChrisL]
... a separate document defining this would be okay
20:15:21 [ChrisL]
... access control policy that applies to a ua or other agent that uses this file format
20:15:53 [ChrisL]
jdaggett: on the list you seem to want the css3 font spec to change also? or only the woff spec
20:16:18 [ChrisL]
glenn: same comments on css3 font spec it should not define the fetching process
20:16:58 [ChrisL]
glenn: the way to refer to a font. not a fetching mechanism. nothing says about the transport protocol used to fetch this
20:17:24 [ChrisL]
glenn: this wg does not develop css3 fonts
20:17:55 [ChrisL]
Vlad: yes but they are markjed as features at risk because we believe they should be removed from the format spec and placed in css3 fonts instead
20:18:09 [ChrisL]
glenn: understand but dont't agree
20:19:24 [ChrisL]
glenn: right nw we have looping references
20:19:42 [ChrisL]
.. want a tree graph not a circular graph
20:20:32 [ChrisL]
ChrisL: your mail says that moving all this to html5 how would that solve your problem?
20:20:40 [ChrisL]
glenn: no preference
20:22:03 [ChrisL]
ChrisL: html5 spec and css3 spec both define auto fetching linked resources, how do they differ
20:22:22 [ChrisL]
glenn: html5 defines the fetching mechanism in detail
20:22:38 [ChrisL]
... css3 fonts does not define that mechanism not should it
20:22:58 [ChrisL]
jdaggett: so you are sayingit cant define requirements around that fetching?
20:23:50 [ChrisL]
jfkthame: throughout the woff document there are ua requirements
20:24:34 [ChrisL]
glenn: png or mpeg or jpeg dont define ua requirements in the file format. format should be independent. conformance on processing is reasonable, like encoding or decoding
20:24:47 [ChrisL]
... conformance levels related to presentation.
20:24:56 [ChrisL]
... those are reasonable
20:25:15 [ChrisL]
... requirements on access mechanisms and transport protocols are not appropriate
20:25:44 [ChrisL]
jfkthame: we agree the file format is not the place to define it. that was accepted and agreed but it is not as yet defined anywhere else
20:26:27 [ChrisL]
... much harder to understand your objection to defining that in css3 fonts. its defining the @font-face rule and entirely appropriate to define how a ua behaves when processing that rule
20:27:09 [ChrisL]
glenn: other referencing specs at w3c like xlink or xml stylesheet spec or css 2.1 which refer to other resources dont define fetching or access semantics
20:27:20 [ChrisL]
... so that precedent should apply here
20:27:42 [ChrisL]
jdaggett: seems to be a thoretical distinction. why the requirement to follow those boundaries
20:28:13 [ChrisL]
glenn: group can do as they wish, define different levels. specs are mixing layers here, transport and formats
20:29:02 [ChrisL]
jdaggett: do you feel the same way about the loading mechanism of images in the canvas api, like the tainting rules - do you object there? this is very similar
20:29:16 [ChrisL]
glenn: canvas started in html5
20:29:50 [ChrisL]
... its linked to html5 in a way that css3 fonts is not. it doid not start out by having acccess mechanisms in it
20:30:08 [ChrisL]
Vlad: historically css started as part of the html activity then migrated
20:31:02 [ChrisL]
jdaggett: canvas has a similar definition about origin, if the canvas references images from a particukar origin it has impact on ua behavioour. its part of the html5 spec right now at w3c.
20:31:28 [ChrisL]
... the reason its erelevant to this discussionis an example is it defines ua behaviour
20:31:53 [ChrisL]
glenn: html5 is a definition of UA behaviour. css 2 does not define origin requirements
20:32:11 [ChrisL]
jdaggett: are you saying no definition of access can be in css specs?
20:32:45 [ChrisL]
glenn: html5 defines a user agent. css3 should be referenceable by other specs that use other acess control or transport mechanisms
20:33:14 [ChrisL]
jdaggett: cant see how a spec that defines fetching resources is not a user agent specification
20:34:05 [ChrisL]
glenn: css can and has been employed in other contexts. idea of modularisation is to make specs independent. fetchingsemantics in css3 is going backwards. unnecessary dependencies that are not rwquired in woff or css3
20:34:42 [ChrisL]
Vlad: are you saying that if we had this text in a separate spec is okay
20:34:47 [ChrisL]
glenn: yes
20:35:18 [ChrisL]
jdaggett: pushing everything out to another spec makes no sense its findamental to the @font-face rule
20:35:34 [ChrisL]
cslye: it was decided after long discussion that it was relevant
20:36:03 [ChrisL]
glenn: html 5 has a section that goes into great detail on resource fetching. that is a good place to define this also
20:36:09 [ChrisL]
... or in a separate spec
20:37:40 [ChrisL]
glenn: work with authors and content providers 9scribe missed some) guidance to authors and we are folliwing up on this. if these requirements remain then our specs will override this and make them optional in our specs
20:37:51 [ChrisL]
s/9s/(s/
20:38:12 [ChrisL]
... if this is in a separate spec we might reference that in some profiles
20:39:01 [ChrisL]
cslye: so this seems to undermine the point that defining this is generally inappropriate
20:40:08 [ChrisL]
glenn: after looking at the email again we dont object to same origin per se or to SOR vs From-origin. want the option for another group that i am working with to have the option to refer to woff and to css3 font face and have the option to include sor or not
20:40:18 [ChrisL]
jdaggett: a group that is not epub?
20:40:31 [ChrisL]
Vlad: epub does not have confidentially restrictions
20:40:59 [ChrisL]
glenn: its a group for consumer electronics and the fcc has adopted its specs for tvs and handhed devices
20:41:24 [ChrisL]
... due to confidentiallity i can't say more
20:41:37 [ChrisL]
jdaggett: so this impacts creating a profile?
20:41:57 [ChrisL]
gl: yes, it means we have to overide it instead of the flexibility of making it optional
20:42:11 [ChrisL]
jfkthame; consensus of the group was that this should not be optional
20:42:45 [ChrisL]
cslye: yes that was what made the font vendors comfortable with it. adobe would see no value in this spec without sor
20:43:32 [ChrisL]
glenn: want this to be optional. we can overide it if you publish like this but we think its architecturally unsound. understand that the group has asked font vendors.
20:43:50 [ChrisL]
... neither truetype or opentype or pdf define this
20:44:04 [ChrisL]
cslye: woff is not a font format its a delivery container
20:44:06 [ChrisL]
glenn: yes
20:44:34 [ChrisL]
jdaggett: having specs refer to other optional specs mean aiuthors cant rely on the feature. so it makes things not work
20:45:06 [ChrisL]
glenn: might allow the user to disable user agent restrictions,that is another option
20:45:48 [ChrisL]
jd; we are primarily interested in specs defined by w3c. if other people want to profile this in other ways ...
20:46:02 [ChrisL]
glenn: dont see this is only for use for w3c defined user agents
20:46:11 [ChrisL]
Vlad: actually the group charter says that
20:46:30 [ChrisL]
... first statement, mission is for interiperable download of fonts on the web
20:46:42 [ChrisL]
glenn: ah okay
20:47:53 [ChrisL]
Vlad: you said that part of the group has a strong interest ... actually that is a resolution of the whole wg. and normative behavious gives interop, this is also a group consensus
20:48:18 [ChrisL]
... agree that the format spec is not iseal, best place is in css3 fonts which is where this referencing mechanism is defined
20:48:40 [ChrisL]
glenn; we will object if its in either of woff or css3 specs
20:49:01 [ChrisL]
Vlad: so primar y requirement is to be able to profile it out?
20:49:19 [ChrisL]
glenn: no the primary objection is the mixing of layers
20:49:30 [ChrisL]
cslye: do others support you on that?
20:50:11 [ChrisL]
glenn: yes i have had some supporting email. have not looked at other participants in this other consumer electronics forum but some of them are w3c members so i will ask what their position is
20:50:26 [ChrisL]
... if samsung is a lone dissenter we might drop the objection later
20:50:36 [ChrisL]
... will look at how this is resolved
20:51:45 [ChrisL]
jdaggett; as editor of css3 fonts spec, i dont see a way of changing the spec to what you are asking for, so that the same origin mechanism goes into a third spec. it merely pushes the specs around rather than adressing the actual issue of what the origin mechanism should be
20:51:53 [ChrisL]
glenn: understand your position
20:52:08 [ChrisL]
... see that html5 defines same origin and something related to fonts
20:52:17 [ChrisL]
... this is where it should be defined
20:52:51 [ChrisL]
Vlad: thanks glenn for joining us so we can better undertand each other's positions. this has beena positive discussion and i think we all understand the issues now
20:53:30 [ChrisL]
... can see that other organisations develop subset specs, this has happened before. that is fine but for w3c we want somthing that is coherent, tstraightforward as possible
20:54:29 [ChrisL]
glenn: on a final not, we are not trying to make a change thatprecludes content authors restricting access to content. no objecting to that. dont want to stop content authors or font foundries protecting their content or intellectiual property
20:54:40 [ChrisL]
... there are mechanisms for controlling access
20:55:15 [ChrisL]
... autgors can express constraints on access and uas can accept those contraints. no problem with that
20:55:33 [ChrisL]
glenn: happy to attend a future call, thanks for the discussions
20:55:35 [Zakim]
-Glenn
20:57:28 [Zakim]
-ChrisL
20:58:11 [Zakim]
+ChrisL
21:07:37 [Zakim]
-jdaggett
21:07:39 [Zakim]
-ChrisL
21:07:39 [Zakim]
- +1.408.536.aadd
21:07:40 [Zakim]
-Vlad
21:07:43 [Zakim]
-jfkthame
21:07:44 [Zakim]
IA_Fonts()4:00PM has ended
21:07:46 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.781.970.aaaa, +1.417.671.aabb, +44.845.397.aacc, ChrisL, +1.408.536.aadd, jfkthame, jdaggett, Vlad, Glenn
21:07:47 [ChrisL]
agdourned
21:07:49 [cslye]
cslye has left #webfonts
21:07:53 [ChrisL]
zakim, list attendees
21:07:53 [Zakim]
sorry, ChrisL, I don't know what conference this is
21:08:02 [ChrisL]
rrsagent, make minutes
21:08:02 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/06/22-webfonts-minutes.html ChrisL